A Gay Hamlet?

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the relationship between Hamlet and Horatio, like many Shakespearean relationships, is left somewhat ambiguous. The play includes very few stage directions, and no character notes.
They can be, and are usually interpreted and performed as, very close - yet platonic - friends, almost brothers. This is a very viable interpretation, and one that I quite like and appreciate.
HOWEVER, as always, old Bill has left a lot of room to interpret: Hamlet is often talking of his love for Horatio, how he holds him deeply in his heart, Horatio addresses Hamlet fondly with phrases such as "my sweet lord." And gods know, a stage or film production could add any sort of blocking and direction and interpretation of emotion they pleased (as many fans on the internet rather irreverently do ^_^' ).

Therefore, I propose that Hamlet and Horatio's relationship may contain or could be interpreted as having a homosexual context (keeping in mind that some say Shakespeare himself may have been gay or bisexual), whether overt or through subtle undertones.
What is your opinion on this?
What interpretation do you prefer?
Also, how would you feel upon watching a production in which this is the interpretation?

Tell me what you think!

Nope. no no no no no no.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wholly against the superimposed interpretations on Shakespeare - and your point about there being some very suggestive homosexual relationships (Mercutio to Romeo, Antonio to Bassanio, Orsino to Caesario....) is a fair one.

However, Hamlet is one I cannot except. Hamlet is a character incapable of love since the death of his father. Throughout the play he sheds more and more of any form of emotion until he is empty enough to do the deed that he must do.

As for Horatio, they are friends, and Horatio is the only one that Hamlet can trust throughout the play. Horatio is a necessary device for both Hamlet to use as a sounding board, because he is not Richard III or Iago who use the audience for that purpose, he needs someone in the action to know his true plans. Plus someone has to be there to tell Hamlet's story. But there is no hint of love. Respect, yes. There is a great distinction between how he treats Horatio and how he treats Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, his mother and uncle, Polonius.....but this does not amount to love.

Love has no place in Hamlet - it is one of the few Shakespeare plays that you can say this about. Love has no dominion.

I don't really see it.

I also don't quite get the obsession with reading homosexuality into Shakespeare's plays. Just read Marlowe's Edward II, the homosexual relationship in that play is explicit.

If Hamlet is a tragic protagonist does his being homosexual take away from the tragic grandeur of the play? The answer would depend on the belief of the day , on the church and the bible and the common men who were a part of the audience. As for the question whether I would enjoya hamlet production where the central theme is his sexuality, I would definitely say no. I like my Hamlet as i have been taught to read it..tragic, noble and sad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Love has no place in Hamlet - it is one of the few Shakespeare plays that you can say this about. Love has no dominion.

---

I think I will have to agree with this statement and generally with the fact that I don't think in this instance there is any erotic love between Hamlet and Horatio. I wouldn't mind watching a production that leaned that way, but I think that it would change the dynamic of the play... which is ok, though it would not be the same Hamlet.

Hamlet is immature, self-absorbed, a bit spoiled and definitely sad... a boy who doesn't even know what love is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sadhana

If Hamlet is a tragic protagonist does his being homosexual take away from the tragic grandeur of the play? The answer would depend on the belief of the day , on the church and the bible and the common men who were a part of the audience. As for the question whether I would enjoya hamlet production where the central theme is his sexuality, I would definitely say no. I like my Hamlet as i have been taught to read it..tragic, noble and sad

---

It's not a matter of taking away from the tragic figure, the events would still be the same, and thus the tragedy intact. But there is so much more to hamlet than his position as the tragic hero.

Horatio is a weird figure really, because I think he's mostly a plot a device, he just stands around quietly most of the play so that Hamlet has someone to talk to. And he acts as a counter-point to a lot of Hamlet's philosophical musings. I think the matter of the friendship/intimacy between them is tacked on to rationalize why a prince spends so much time around someone who seems to be a lowly gentleman.

I don't think it would change much whether the relationship is sexual or not. Which makes the interpretation more about novelty, which isn't bad, but I don't think adds depth.

The people in Monty Python and Idle's flying circus thought so. What about Sir Lawrence Olivier?

I've seen it done, and to interesting effect...

I take OrphanPip's point reading too much homoeroticism in Shakespeare - I remember vividly having an argument with a girl in my undergrad days who insisted that there was 'of course' a homosexual relationship between Hal and Falstaff. That said, I think it can work with Hamlet and Horatio - Hamlet is such a complex character that the staging of the play can massively alter him. If he is demonstrated to be in a loving relationship with Horatio, as I've seen done, it throughs a great deal of light on how we percieve his relationship to Ophelia and Gertrude, and his rivalry with Laertes.

I think someone mispelled once as Hamlot. It all started there. Then with The Merchant of Venice it became worse because of the bet. And with the advent of Turberville Needham and his Aristotelian proof of spontaneity in the birth of flies, nobody was capable of any doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Love has no place in Hamlet - it is one of the few Shakespeare plays that you can say this about. Love has no dominion.

---

I disagree with the certainty of that statement.
I think one of the extraordinay things about Hamlet is the sheer ambiguity of his character. I mean, just look at this page: One person says definitively that Hamlet is "immature, self-absorbed, [and] a bit spoiled" while another believes that he is "tragic, noble." In some versions, Hamlet is played as practically as a completely unhinged psychopath, while in others he is a gentleman who maintains his wits and morality. Sometimes he is a skinny, tall, blonde Scandinavian-looking man, and sometimes he is played by a woman - and everything in between.
Thus, Hamlet can be interpreted "in an infinite number of ways" (Brian Pearce, "Hamlet the Actor"), and I disagree with the idea of flat-out stating that a certain interpretation is impossible.

On the other hand, I do think the idea of Hamlet being incapable of love is very interesting. I like the idea that he has to empty himself of emotion before he is capable of murder. However, in my opinion, I would say Hamlet's problem is that he is too much under the influence of love - love that keeps getting destroyed by those around him. He loves Ophelia, and she betrays him (in his eyes, anyway). He loves his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but soon finds out they are spying on him. He loves his father, but he is killed. He loves his mother, but she too seems to leave him. In other words, I would say that it is the "pangs of despised love" itself that hold dominion over Hamlet. Therefore, I'd say love plays a central role in the play, far from having "no place."

Nonetheless, I do understand that people often search too hard for homoeroticism in Shakespearean works, and I'm not arguing that "'of course' [there is] a homosexual relationship" in Hamlet.
It's just that I think it would be interesting. Largely because I don't like the idea of Horatio being an object for Hamlet to bounce his ideas off of. If he is a character in a Shakespearean play, I would argue that he should be portrayed as a three-dimensional person. For instance, Kenneth Branagh's film portrays Horatio in a satisfying human way. Thus, I don't believe homosexuality is necessary for a human portrayal, but it could add a very interesting dimension to the play and the character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesun777

I disagree with the certainty of that statement.
I think one of the extraordinay things about Hamlet is the sheer ambiguity of his character. I mean, just look at this page: One person says definitively that Hamlet is "immature, self-absorbed, [and] a bit spoiled" while another believes that he is "tragic, noble." In some versions, Hamlet is played as practically as a completely unhinged psychopath, while in others he is a gentleman who maintains his wits and morality. Sometimes he is a skinny, tall, blonde Scandinavian-looking man, and sometimes he is played by a woman - and everything in between.
Thus, Hamlet can be interpreted "in an infinite number of ways" (Brian Pearce, "Hamlet the Actor"), and I disagree with the idea of flat-out stating that a certain interpretation is impossible.

---

I never claimed to be objective truth, and unless you do so, I think it's implied that an interpretation is always subjective. And so I stand by claim "love has no dominion in Hamlet" and believe that I don't have to add any "I think" or "in my opinion" to have it understood that this is my view on the subject and not the end-all.

That's one thing I notice too much in essays, that I try to encourage my students against, this wavering lack of convictions in an argument. Take a stance on this and don't feel you need to be apologetic to those who may disagree - this is a place for discussion about literature, dissent is what keeps it going.

So saying, I respect your opinion about Hamlet's infinite interpretations, but I stand by my point that even in these infinite interpretations, there is hardly a trace of "love" to be found. It's just not in the text, which remains so cold when it comes to the emotions between people.

This whole thing is very gossipy, very juicy. And love of course could be found anywhere to some extent. However, I happen to agree with Charles. What is there in the dialogues, then? Aristocratic hypocrisy? Perhaps. Most likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I don't really see it.

I also don't quite get the obsession with reading homosexuality into Shakespeare's plays. Just read Marlowe's Edward II, the homosexual relationship in that play is explicit.

---

But I love to read about it...

LOl how about we are all gay...
what an amusing tale and it seems right to me that Hamlet would be...so much fun to be had.

Hamlet's relationship with Horatio is unlikely to be sexual, considering Hamlet's attitude to sex. I know they are very close but I think they see it as a pure love rather than a sexual relationship.

I have heard this argument before but I don't buy it, I like Hamlet because I don't see him loving anyone as a partner. They are friends and confidants but I don't read anything else into it.

I think we are often keen on finding a deeper relationship between men that we don't see with women cause they seem to be allowed to be more intimate without it being gay.

Anyway I re-read Hamlet last Christmas because this discussion had come up in class not that many agreed with it.